im not gay myself but you may not like gays but think about it gays are people too they have feelings and there choice is there choice. you shouldnt ban gay marriage. what if someone banned straight marriage a whole lot of people would be angry right just let people be who they want to be. you will be ruining peoples lives. you shouldnt vote for romney if he tears apart thousands of peoples lives!

Not sure Presidents have that power to do so, right now it is controlled by states isn't it? Is this a fear tactic kind of like how Obama is using his own tactics at claiming he can push for same sex marriage for all states?

At 8/2/12 04:09 PM, TheKlown wrote:
Not sure Presidents have that power to do so, right now it is controlled by states isn't it? Is this a fear tactic kind of like how Obama is using his own tactics at claiming he can push for same sex marriage for all states?

Sort of, the 14th amendment is often argued because it prevents states from treating people differently. The Supreme Court said banning gay marriage is illegal but apparently it seems no one is willing to enforce it IIRC.

"If you don't mind smelling like peanut butter for two or three days, peanut butter is darn good shaving cream.
" - Barry Goldwater.

I thought he supported Civil Unions, probably because it is the cowards way out to these people but is actually a good compromise between religious freedom and other civil liberties. Only reason why its the unpopular view is because everyone just wants the whole pie.

Since being gay is semi-acceptable from society nowadays I think gay marriage shouldn't be banned. IMO,bad choice mr Romney.He will get votes because of that from those few people who still believe homosexuality is an unnatural act and a violation of God's law.Or they are more than just few?

At 8/3/12 11:08 AM, tonypar16 wrote:
Since being gay is semi-acceptable from society nowadays I think gay marriage shouldn't be banned. IMO,bad choice mr Romney.He will get votes because of that from those few people who still believe homosexuality is an unnatural act and a violation of God's law.Or they are more than just few?

Learn to read peoples posts, presidents can't pass laws to approve or ban same sex marriage but just give their opinions on it.

The best argument that people have given me for making gay marriage illegal is, "it says in the bible that being gay is bad". You find this talk in Leviticus. Much of Leviticus's teachings counteract what Jesus taught. Leviticus told people to kill there nabor if they worked on the Sabbath. To murder your own child if they did not follow the faith. He says things like if a woman shale try to teach a man she is to be stoned.

We do not enforce these things because they have no place in a modern civilized society and nether should making gay marriage illegal. Also we are a secular nation so what the bible or any other religious text says should be irrelevant.

At 8/5/12 11:27 AM, Jmayer20 wrote:
The best argument that people have given me for making gay marriage illegal is, "it says in the bible that being gay is bad".

I think the actual issue is not around that, at least for most people. They are probably concerned that the government will force people who don't believe in gay marriage to marry same sex couples whether they like it or not, the same way racist business owners are forced to serve the people they don't like. While most people seem to be okay with that, it becomes a little different when you start forcing churches to change their ways too.

The ban on gay marriage that they are calling for is massively hypocritical in this sense, just as the liberal stance to force gay marriage is too. People who pull bible quotes with out checking the context in which they are used before hand and immediately assume they have a place in the laws our country are ruled by are just a vocal minority, like WBC (the god hates f***s people).

At 8/2/12 03:42 PM, kewlboy05 wrote:
im not gay myself but you may not like gays but think about it gays are people too they have feelings and there choice is there choice. you shouldnt ban gay marriage.

At 8/6/12 02:46 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote:
I think the actual issue is not around that, at least for most people. They are probably concerned that the government will force people who don't believe in gay marriage to marry same sex couples whether they like it or not, the same way racist business owners are forced to serve the people they don't like. While most people seem to be okay with that, it becomes a little different when you start forcing churches to change their ways too.

The ban on gay marriage that they are calling for is massively hypocritical in this sense, just as the liberal stance to force gay marriage is too. People who pull bible quotes with out checking the context in which they are used before hand and immediately assume they have a place in the laws our country are ruled by are just a vocal minority, like WBC (the god hates f***s people).

But of course how silly of me. We can not take away your freedom to take away other people's freedoms. How silly of me to think they might get married by a judge or some one who is not a bigot. No no they will go to a church among people who hate there gut and wish them to burn in hell. That sounds like a great place for a weeding somewhere where every one wants you dead. Look have you even meet a gay person before. I have and contrary to what the church acts like they do not have flames shooting out of there nostrils and horns sticking out of the top of there head.

At 8/2/12 03:51 PM, PMMurphy wrote:
i agree completely. Gay marriage should be completely legal in every way and form.

And further more, banning Gay Marriages will only further violate the Sacred Laws of Freedom and Romney in turn will pay a major price from the Gay community if he actually succeeds becoming President and Banning Gay Marriages in it's wake.

That said, as much as I won't ever vote for the current President in office, I won't even vote for Romney either, I don't trust either of them and I don't even think Romney uphold the ideas of the US Constitution either.

Look have you even meet a gay person before. I have and contrary to what the church acts like they do not have flames shooting out of there nostrils and horns sticking out of the top of there head.

lets just say I'm probably more socially liberal than you, I just don't want the government to force anyone's hand. But I know history, you can get sued if you deny people service for these kind of reasons and that's exactly what this issue can turn into.

and drop the high and mighty tolerance kid attitude. Were talking about free will and the right to refuse service, not the right to run out and actually restrain some one who's actions currently have nothing to do with you. It's called the right to say "no".

Are you say that the only reason you are against gay marriage is because they might do something to you. They might force some priest to marry them. First off that's kind of a lame excuse. Second if that is really your only problem then lets say in the bill legalizing gay marriage you also have a part that say some one does not have to marry the gay couple if it is agents there religious beliefs. Then at lest they can go to someone that is not a bigot.

At 8/2/12 04:57 PM, Warforger wrote:
The Supreme Court said banning gay marriage is illegal but apparently it seems no one is willing to enforce it IIRC.

When did they ever say that? To the best of my knowledge, the Supreme Court always overtly avoided the issue.

I believe that they ruled that legislating a gay marriage ban is unconstitutional. This is why you see bills going to public votes in states that want to ban gay marriage; if you want to ban it, you have to amend the state constitution.

At 8/2/12 03:42 PM, kewlboy05 wrote:
im not gay myself but you may not like gays but think about it gays are people too they have feelings and there choice is there choice. you shouldnt ban gay marriage. what if someone banned straight marriage a whole lot of people would be angry right just let people be who they want to be. you will be ruining peoples lives. you shouldnt vote for romney if he tears apart thousands of peoples lives!

Good evening kewlboy05, this is Mitt Romney and I would like to address a few misconceptions that you have presented with your initial post.

Firstly, the President of the United States does not have the absolute power to legalize gay marriage. the congress must first pass the law before he or she can actually veto or sign the bill into law. A President can propose the law, but the Congress must vote on it before he or she can actually make into an official law. Also, the Supreme Court may review the law and deem it as constitutional or unconstitutional, which could make or break the bill from even being able to be upheld. Even then, it will most likely be decided on the state level, not the federal level.

Secondly, the current President, Barack Obama, is personally for gay marriage, but has stated himself that he is not yet going to take action on it as he will keep decisions in the states' power as seen in this CNN article: http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/politics/obama-same-sex-marria ge/index.html . Naturally, another president will not be able to ban or legalize gay marriage on the national level. It will happen on the state level.

Finally, gay marriage will be legalized across the USA no matter who the president will be in 2012 and future years to come. These progressing civil rights will evolve from not only LGBT, but to other, more taboo areas such as marrying a brother or sister, polygamy, etc. It's only a matter of time.

Just like I would plan on never marrying if it wasn't for my girlfriend being a not-atheist. If there is an institution that offers the exact same privileges, just without the religious name, then what the hell is the problem?

Just like I would plan on never marrying if it wasn't for my girlfriend being a not-atheist. If there is an institution that offers the exact same privileges, just without the religious name, then what the hell is the problem?

Many will make the argument that marriage is not a religious ceremony or institution.

Just like I would plan on never marrying if it wasn't for my girlfriend being a not-atheist. If there is an institution that offers the exact same privileges, just without the religious name, then what the hell is the problem?

We've been over this in previous threads: there is no evidence that "marriage" is a strictly religious term, and the etymology of the word implies it is not. Furthermore, even if it were a religious term, a given religion, denomination, or institution of worship can choose to marry homosexual couples of its own volition, while simultaneously respecting the right of another religion/denomination/institution to choose not to do so. Thus the argument of "religious sanctity of marriage" is void.